This thread is a perfect example. Marrying someone with different religious beliefs can be "settling" if your religious beliefs mean a whole lot to you.

Generally, in the South, settling means whoever you can get to marry you. My aunt was in love with one guy, lost him, married another guy with a lot of wonderful attributes but he wasn't what my aunt wanted. She knew she couldn't have what she wanted so she just took anything. I think a lot of people do that. In my case, I like certain types of ethics and behavior. I like impulse control. Few guys have that. For me it would be settling to be with a guy who gets drunk regularly when I really prefer guys that have never been drunk. Or dating a guy into porn or has a history of infidelity. I just cannot respect guys in that category and for me to love someone I don't respect would be pushing it a bit.

It is easier for people with fewer values to form relationships because the relationship matters more than the value. Yes, there are some deep, meaningful relationships that fall into this category. Just would not work for me. It is easier if a woman doesn't care about a guy's alcohol proclivities.

In my relationship with my boyfriend, it would have been easier if I had been on the same page with his church. I loved him. To marry me would have been settling because it was so very important to him, for many reasons including professional, if he could marry someone who would not only tolerate his church but really enjoy it. That was not me. Love was not enough or rather it asked too much. Give up his social standing or put me through a Sunday School class where otherwise intelligent people discuss whether or not the Holocaust happened. Also, it was a church with no black members. That offended me. Now, these things also offended my boyfriend for he did share those values with me but he felt for social, professional reasons, he needed the church. I really couldn't stomach the church nor do I want my intellect and soul enslaved to social standing.

Love was not enough and I don't think either of us failed. We both had legitimate desires that just could not be reconciled.

Do not get the idea I am picking on you, but you keep posting the very things I want to address.

First of all, it is likely "mathematically" possible for everyone to have someone that the positive outweighs the negative, however it may not be realistically possible or logistically practical to figure out who should belong to who for things to work. (And just before someone jumps my wording, I used "belong" as emotionally mutual.)

Second, the impulse control problem, while slightly more common in men applies to both sexes, and the reason you think it is rare is for two reasons. Those with impulse control either use it to find who they want, or those that do not have that skill set get fed up with the women they meet that have that problem and come to the same conclusions about women that you came to about men. Frankly, I wish our culture did not discourage impulse control. Just think about all the popular culture that tells you to place feeling ahead of reason and that encourage you to "do" rather than "think".

Just remember that any bad habits us men have that is more common than not is because it has been selected for by who manages to reproduce. Most physical traits each sex finds attractive have been linked to tendencies for fertility. Most mental traits have been linked to survival traits that date back before civilization. This includes the reason why men do not appear as picky about physical relationships as women, since in such a climate a woman needs protection more than a man. As a result women are more likely to make a poor decision and accept a male when she feels threatened by something other than that man, and a man is more likely to do the same when he sees a woman in that situation.

While those behavior patterns do not demand we act in that manner. The more we are encouraged to "do" rather than "think" the more likely we will do things in exactly that manner.

“Do not get the idea I am picking on you, but you keep posting the very things I want to address. “
Excellent post. I don't feel that you are picking on me I find it refreshing that you are not offering the usual trite, canned nonsense spouted by most people.

“First of all, it is likely "mathematically" possible for everyone to have someone that the positive outweighs the negative, however it may not be realistically possible or logistically practical to figure out who should belong to who for things to work. (And just before someone jumps my wording, I used "belong" as emotionally mutual.)”
I disagree with this. The ratio of live births female to male is 51 to 49. Add to the fact that more males are killed in war. My generation lost 49,000 something males. More males are killed during their prime in accidents than women. Add that there are a quite a few dire birth defects that strike males more than females. Women are starting out with less choice from the git go.

“Second, the impulse control problem, while slightly more common in men applies to both sexes, and the reason you think it is rare is for two reasons. Those with impulse control either use it to find who they want, or those that do not have that skill set get fed up with the women they meet that have that problem and come to the same conclusions about women that you came to about men. Frankly, I wish our culture did not discourage impulse control. Just think about all the popular culture that tells you to place feeling ahead of reason and that encourage you to "do" rather than think.”
It isn't that I think women are immune from issues. It isn't a competition and I don't date women. Not interested. Finding men with a sense of responsibility is a challenge. I can't do anything about the women. Other than myself. I do choose men. While I don't want to grow up and live without fun, I just don't find destructive activities fun. For some reason, in our culture, being responsible is linked with being dull. We are a Jerry Springer culture.

“ Just remember that any bad habits us men have that is more common than not is because it has been selected for by who manages to reproduce. Most physical traits each sex finds attractive have been linked to tendencies for fertility. Most mental traits have been linked to survival traits that date back before civilization. This includes the reason why men do not appear as picky about physical relationships as women, since in such a climate a woman needs protection more than a man. As a result women are more likely to make a poor decision and accept a male when she feels threatened by something other than that man, and a man is more likely to do the same when he sees a woman in that situation.”
You do touch on the problem. Women do choose the men to breed with. The sorriest men are often the result of women who choose fathers for their children badly as well being messed up themselves and too narcissistic to care how that will impact the child. Or as Arnie keeps saying, think that love will conquer all. I believe that while our biological drives served us well when mankind was struggling for survival, I think it has become counterproductive in a time when the world population is 7 billion plus. Obviously, we are surviving. I think we should get away from the obsession, driven by our bodies, to produce quantity and use our minds to produce quality. However, when you have so many women getting pregnant by Neanderthals, you only get offspring that are Neanderthals. I see too many women who will have 3 children by a guy who beats her or will have 3 children by a guy who cheats on her. One child may be an accident but three are a decision. They don't get that they are perpetuating those primal genes that urge the human race to be enslaved to the drives of the body rather than improving the nature of mankind by giving their children the best fathers possible. Lust alone enables people to survive but intelligence, applied properly, can work to make that survival worthwhile. If women would choose the better men for fathers and size themselves up more accurately/fearlessly, within a couple of generations, some of our most tiresome and vexing problems would drastically decrease.

While those behavior patterns do not demand we act in that manner. The more we are encouraged to "do" rather than "think" the more likely we will do things in exactly that manner.

This thread is a perfect example. Marrying someone with different religious beliefs can be "settling" if your religious beliefs mean a whole lot to you.

Generally, in the South, settling means whoever you can get to marry you. My aunt was in love with one guy, lost him, married another guy with a lot of wonderful attributes but he wasn't what my aunt wanted. She knew she couldn't have what she wanted so she just took anything. I think a lot of people do that. In my case, I like certain types of ethics and behavior. I like impulse control. Few guys have that. For me it would be settling to be with a guy who gets drunk regularly when I really prefer guys that have never been drunk. Or dating a guy into porn or has a history of infidelity. I just cannot respect guys in that category and for me to love someone I don't respect would be pushing it a bit.

It is easier for people with fewer values to form relationships because the relationship matters more than the value. Yes, there are some deep, meaningful relationships that fall into this category. Just would not work for me. It is easier if a woman doesn't care about a guy's alcohol proclivities.

In my relationship with my boyfriend, it would have been easier if I had been on the same page with his church. I loved him. To marry me would have been settling because it was so very important to him, for many reasons including professional, if he could marry someone who would not only tolerate his church but really enjoy it. That was not me. Love was not enough or rather it asked too much. Give up his social standing or put me through a Sunday School class where otherwise intelligent people discuss whether or not the Holocaust happened. Also, it was a church with no black members. That offended me. Now, these things also offended my boyfriend for he did share those values with me but he felt for social, professional reasons, he needed the church. I really couldn't stomach the church nor do I want my intellect and soul enslaved to social standing.

Love was not enough and I don't think either of us failed. We both had legitimate desires that just could not be reconciled.

I don't know, Appy. My religious beliefs are very important to me, but I married a man who believes differently than I do. We both believe that while our beliefs are important to us, they don't necessarily have to spawn belief clone syndrome. Believing exactly as everyone else is not necessarily a positive thing.

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

What you are describing is not love as I understand it or mean it. Your ex-bf was essentially saying "I love you BUT I since you are not Christian and will never become one, I can't be with you." Love has no 'buts'; love never sticks its 'but' into the other's face. ;) Love has only "ands." You can love another only to the extent that you love yourself. Even if attending church together "means a lot," it is not love if he cannot accept who you are fully. And that includes the second- and third- order things. Such as - you would be willing to tolerate some church for his sake, but it would never get beyond gritting teeth type of tolerance, and he probably would either want you to actually believe and enjoy being there, or our of caring for you not wish you to be uncomfortable just for his sake (or some combination of the two, and maybe others).

Love is about being oneself with the other and allowing them to be who they are without conditions. And this does not imply that all behaviors are acceptable - to the contrary, love of myself means that any behaviors of my partner that have a tangible impact on me are addressed and resolved in such a way that we are both 100% comfortable with the outcome. Love is not an either...or, but a both...and.

If your ex-bf was not willing to totally accept you as you are, then it was not love.

The mathematical ratio of quantities doesn't seem to change the fact that both men & women singles often decry the existence of "good" people of the opposite gender. Certainly if every man paired up there would be some women left over; maybe we are heading back to some kind of polygamy driven by the odds?

In any event, perhaps the odds being against women makes you feel there is little chance. I assume you have at least a college degree - when you applied to college or graduate school, perhaps you avoided the ones with low acceptance ratios for the same reason.

"Love will conquer all" is the kind of pollyanna-ish pablum you are probably reacting against. Love is of course much deeper than this starry-eyed point of view. Although I originally posted the Lennon quote as a quip (or was it a quip as a quote?) the more I think about it, the more I believe it to be true - and long as it is clear that "love" is not the romantic illusion foisted upon us by society and Hollywood, but goes to the depths of who we are.

[QUOTE=appy20;1042398]Edit is my friend but I do betray him occasionally[/QUOTE] I didn't realize the edit button was male...:p

“Do not get the idea I am picking on you, but you keep posting the very things I want to address. “
Excellent post. I don't feel that you are picking on me I find it refreshing that you are not offering the usual trite, canned nonsense spouted by most people.

“First of all, it is likely "mathematically" possible for everyone to have someone that the positive outweighs the negative, however it may not be realistically possible or logistically practical to figure out who should belong to who for things to work. (And just before someone jumps my wording, I used "belong" as emotionally mutual.)”
I disagree with this. The ratio of live births female to male is 51 to 49. Add to the fact that more males are killed in war. My generation lost 49,000 something males. More males are killed during their prime in accidents than women. Add that there are a quite a few dire birth defects that strike males more than females. Women are starting out with less choice from the git go.

“Second, the impulse control problem, while slightly more common in men applies to both sexes, and the reason you think it is rare is for two reasons. Those with impulse control either use it to find who they want, or those that do not have that skill set get fed up with the women they meet that have that problem and come to the same conclusions about women that you came to about men. Frankly, I wish our culture did not discourage impulse control. Just think about all the popular culture that tells you to place feeling ahead of reason and that encourage you to "do" rather than think.”
It isn't that I think women are immune from issues. It isn't a competition and I don't date women. Not interested. Finding men with a sense of responsibility is a challenge. I can't do anything about the women. Other than myself. I do choose men. While I don't want to grow up and live without fun, I just don't find destructive activities fun. For some reason, in our culture, being responsible is linked with being dull. We are a Jerry Springer culture.

“ Just remember that any bad habits us men have that is more common than not is because it has been selected for by who manages to reproduce. Most physical traits each sex finds attractive have been linked to tendencies for fertility. Most mental traits have been linked to survival traits that date back before civilization. This includes the reason why men do not appear as picky about physical relationships as women, since in such a climate a woman needs protection more than a man. As a result women are more likely to make a poor decision and accept a male when she feels threatened by something other than that man, and a man is more likely to do the same when he sees a woman in that situation.”
You do touch on the problem. Women do choose the men to breed with. The sorriest men are often the result of women who choose fathers for their children badly as well being messed up themselves and too narcissistic to care how that will impact the child. Or as Arnie keeps saying, think that love will conquer all. I believe that while our biological drives served us well when mankind was struggling for survival, I think it has become counterproductive in a time when the world population is 7 billion plus. Obviously, we are surviving. I think we should get away from the obsession, driven by our bodies, to produce quantity and use our minds to produce quality. However, when you have so many women getting pregnant by Neanderthals, you only get offspring that are Neanderthals. I see too many women who will have 3 children by a guy who beats her or will have 3 children by a guy who cheats on her. One child may be an accident but three are a decision. They don't get that they are perpetuating those primal genes that urge the human race to be enslaved to the drives of the body rather than improving the nature of mankind by giving their children the best fathers possible. Lust alone enables people to survive but intelligence, applied properly, can work to make that survival worthwhile. If women would choose the better men for fathers and size themselves up more accurately/fearlessly, within a couple of generations, some of our most tiresome and vexing problems would drastically decrease.

While those behavior patterns do not demand we act in that manner. The more we are encouraged to "do" rather than "think" the more likely we will do things in exactly that manner.

This thread is a perfect example. Marrying someone with different religious beliefs can be "settling" if your religious beliefs mean a whole lot to you.

Generally, in the South, settling means whoever you can get to marry you. My aunt was in love with one guy, lost him, married another guy with a lot of wonderful attributes but he wasn't what my aunt wanted. She knew she couldn't have what she wanted so she just took anything. I think a lot of people do that. In my case, I like certain types of ethics and behavior. I like impulse control. Few guys have that. For me it would be settling to be with a guy who gets drunk regularly when I really prefer guys that have never been drunk. Or dating a guy into porn or has a history of infidelity. I just cannot respect guys in that category and for me to love someone I don't respect would be pushing it a bit.

It is easier for people with fewer values to form relationships because the relationship matters more than the value. Yes, there are some deep, meaningful relationships that fall into this category. Just would not work for me. It is easier if a woman doesn't care about a guy's alcohol proclivities.

In my relationship with my boyfriend, it would have been easier if I had been on the same page with his church. I loved him. To marry me would have been settling because it was so very important to him, for many reasons including professional, if he could marry someone who would not only tolerate his church but really enjoy it. That was not me. Love was not enough or rather it asked too much. Give up his social standing or put me through a Sunday School class where otherwise intelligent people discuss whether or not the Holocaust happened. Also, it was a church with no black members. That offended me. Now, these things also offended my boyfriend for he did share those values with me but he felt for social, professional reasons, he needed the church. I really couldn't stomach the church nor do I want my intellect and soul enslaved to social standing.

Love was not enough and I don't think either of us failed. We both had legitimate desires that just could not be reconciled.

I don't know, Appy. My religious beliefs are very important to me, but I married a man who believes differently than I do. We both believe that while our beliefs are important to us, they don't necessarily have to spawn belief clone syndrome. Believing exactly as everyone else is not necessarily a positive thing.

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

What you are describing is not love as I understand it or mean it. Your ex-bf was essentially saying "I love you BUT I since you are not Christian and will never become one, I can't be with you." Love has no 'buts'; love never sticks its 'but' into the other's face. ;) Love has only "ands." You can love another only to the extent that you love yourself. Even if attending church together "means a lot," it is not love if he cannot accept who you are fully. And that includes the second- and third- order things. Such as - you would be willing to tolerate some church for his sake, but it would never get beyond gritting teeth type of tolerance, and he probably would either want you to actually believe and enjoy being there, or our of caring for you not wish you to be uncomfortable just for his sake (or some combination of the two, and maybe others).

Love is about being oneself with the other and allowing them to be who they are without conditions. And this does not imply that all behaviors are acceptable - to the contrary, love of myself means that any behaviors of my partner that have a tangible impact on me are addressed and resolved in such a way that we are both 100% comfortable with the outcome. Love is not an either...or, but a both...and.

If your ex-bf was not willing to totally accept you as you are, then it was not love.

The mathematical ratio of quantities doesn't seem to change the fact that both men & women singles often decry the existence of "good" people of the opposite gender. Certainly if every man paired up there would be some women left over; maybe we are heading back to some kind of polygamy driven by the odds?

In any event, perhaps the odds being against women makes you feel there is little chance. I assume you have at least a college degree - when you applied to college or graduate school, perhaps you avoided the ones with low acceptance ratios for the same reason.

"Love will conquer all" is the kind of pollyanna-ish pablum you are probably reacting against. Love is of course much deeper than this starry-eyed point of view. Although I originally posted the Lennon quote as a quip (or was it a quip as a quote?) the more I think about it, the more I believe it to be true - and long as it is clear that "love" is not the romantic illusion foisted upon us by society and Hollywood, but goes to the depths of who we are.

[QUOTE=appy20;1042398]Edit is my friend but I do betray him occasionally[/QUOTE] I didn't realize the edit button was male...:p

"We both believe that while our beliefs are important to us, they don't necessarily have to spawn belief clone syndrome. Believing exactly as everyone else is not necessarily a positive thing."

Not only is it not positive, it is impossible. However, sometimes conviction does compete with love. I don't think I would go as far to say that the inability to navigate differences doesn't mean another doesn't love.

I don't think my boyfriend loved me as much as I loved him but he did the best he could. You can't ask more of a person. Unconditional love is not possible at all times for mere mortals.

As for buts in a relationship. By your definition, there isn't a couple in the world that truly loves one another for I don't anyone who doesn't have buts.